The Wildfuels Alternative

Environmental Science and Technology has a special feature on the water demands of expanded biofuels production. This is another one of those elephants in the room (possibly the biggest of them all) that industry and politicians refuse to see.

The Water Footprint of Biofuels: A Drink or Drive Issue?

The report focuses not only on water use, but also on water quality.
It also makes the debate tangible by asking, "Are We Ready for Fifty Gallons of Water per Mile Driven?".

According to Ethanol Producer magazine, the CEO of BBI Mike Bryan expresses shock that the public is actually paying attention to indirect 'push back' issues related to agrofuels:

FEW: Ethanol industry must ‘take back the message’ about ethanol

Bryan misses the point at least twice in the following quote:

"Someone worked to create an image that is false: (that ethanol is a major cause for increased food prices and for deforestation in other countries)."

The first misconception is that there is a very recent conscious attempt to discredit an industry, rather than a longer-term careful consideration of the issues by scientists and other scholars. Scholars that were marginalized and therefore initially ignored by those on the biofuels bandwagon.

The second misconception is that the major concern is current increased food prices and current deforestation. Of course, these are concerns. But the big concern is what WILL happen if mandates demand a multifold increase in biofuels production. Current unintended ill-effects are minuscule compared to what MUST happen under projected increases in agrofuels crops.

Biofuels digest has summarized several reports that imply biofuels have not caused extreme Amazonian deforestation:

Amazon deforestation dropping, despite land use change predicted by ILUC?

Again, they are missing the point. Current biofuels production is tiny in relation to petroleum production, and represents a very small sliver of global agricultural output. We would not yet expect massive deforestation.
The relevant issue here is what WILL happen if we follow the renewable fuel standards, or any other mandates for biofuels use. If we do, we would largely replace petroleum with biomass derived fuels, and the global agricultural sector would no longer be primarily involved with fiber, food, and fodder. It would be hard to believe that a manyfold increase in agrofuel production would have no indirect land use effects.

Minnesota's Collin Peterson (whom I have written about before) and my home state's Frank Lucas are introducing legislation to bypass the EPA ruling on indirect land use effects of agrofuels on greenhouse gas emissions. This may be good news for King Corn, but it is not a good move for global climate, nor for the idea (which is getting to be a myth) that the new Congress will listen to the voice of Science.

Lawmakers try to ease regulation on biofuel's environmental effect

Michael Grunwald of TIME wrote an excellent article on how the EPA's recent indirect land use decision was rigged in favor of the ethanol industry:

Stress-Testing Biofuels: How the Game Was Rigged

It is interesting to note that the majority of the media is reporting that the EPA ruling is viewed as devastating to the biofuels industry.

Yet another case where listening to ecologists earlier on would have helped demystify (and diminish) environmental impacts of agrofuels:

Grassley: Land issue didn’t seem ‘big deal’

Collin Peterson, Chair of the US House agriculture committee, has drawn a non-negotiable line in the sand.

Peterson cries foul on EPA ethanol proposal, vows not to support climate change bill

Many in the scientific community were hoping that the new congress would be interested in listening to scientific opinion, and in seriously tackling climate change. This sort of willful putting-your-hands-over-your ears might have been expected in the past, but is truly shocking now. Can we really afford to hold the climate hostage in defense of unsustainable Minnesota corn ethanol?

In today's biofuels digest, Jim Lane advocates "tuning out" to the debate of indirect effects of biofuels production:

Drop In, Tune Out, Turn On: new thinking for new days in bioenergy

A quote follows. This argument is fundamentally bizarre. The issues are completely ignored, but are deflected by name calling, and 'guilt by association'. He does not mention the large number of scientists who have raised concerns about sodbusting, land clearing, nitrous oxide emissions, and biodiversity loss. By 'scientists', I mean scientists who actually study climate, soil science, landscape ecology, and vegetation science. I don't mean the land-grant agronomist, geneticist, or industrial microbiologist (who are all great scientists, but have little qualifications for discussing mass landscape conversion).

The debate is not about genetic modification. "Tuning out" is precisely the wrong thing to do at this critical stage. Although the earth has displayed remarkable resilience to past mistakes, there may come a tipping point. Just because there are uncertainties about the tipping point is no excuse to 'tune out'.

One telling phrase below is "cultivated on otherwise useless land or ocean." No serious student of earth systems would use such a phrase. The greenhouse consequences of converting 'useless' land and oceans to biomass production are far from trivial.

I worry a bit that even advocates of indirect land use criteria are 'tuning out'. The greenhouse currency under consideration is mostly a contrast between a mature petroleum energy base, and a mature biofuels energy base. But the biggest greenhouse (and biodiversity) impact may come from the initial land clearing and soil turning of the 'useless land'. In addition to the steady-state comparison, we MUST contrast the conversion costs with the benefits (and costs) of mothballing the fossil fuel infrastructure. This sort of accounting has not been seriously considered, and of course there would be serious resistance by the biofuels apologists, who have 'tuned out'.

I also worry that the debate is too corn-centric. Switchgrass and Miscanthus are still praised by biofuels advocates and most environmentalists alike. However, the obvious has been ignored: these relatively untarnished species will be replacing existing 'useless' vegetation. This will be at a strong environmental cost. It may be easy for urban armchair advocates to 'tune out', but those of us who live around 'useless land' will simply be unable to 'tune out'.

Tune Out: The great debate over land use change, greenhouse gas emissions and the wisdom of the ethanol tariff and alt-fuel subsidies, is a debate about yesterday. The protagonists - such as Friends of the Earth, the Environmental Working Group and the Grocery Manufacturers Association on the one hand, and Growth Energy, the Renewable Fuels Association and the National Biodiesel Board on the other hand - are committing the cardinal sin of a commander in the field, the sin of fighting the last war.

The battle over biofuels is a proxy fight in the Cold War over corn and genetic modification of the food supply, more than a debate about fuel. The waving of the red flag of Third World poverty is a canard: far more calories are diverted to fat bellies in the North than are diverted to ethanol distilleries; it’s not even a close race. The best thing Westerners can do to provide more food at affordable prices for hungry people in the South is to, borrowing a phrase from the cows at Chick-Fil-A, “Eat more chicken,”, or even better, eat less highly-processed foods altogether.

Not all debates go away if ignored, but the debate over renewable fuel emissions and land use change is an exception. In the future, which is less far away than most people think, fuels will be generated from waste or cultivated on otherwise useless land or ocean, diverting nary a drop of water from our freshwater aquifers, and will cause less indirect land use change than throwing an unwanted serving of broccoli in the garbage.

Meanwhile, our attention has been diverted from the development and support of advancing and advanced fuels by this Grand Inquisition into the purity of existing alternatives to fossil fuels. The whole process has the theatrical elements of the Salem witch hunt: it’s a continuation of corn politics by other means.

Tune out the debate, and move on.

Alpha Galileo reports that increasing European biofuels targets will harm biodiversity:

Is Biofuel Policy Harming European Biodiversity?

Bibliographic information:

Is biofuel policy harming biodiversity in Europe? by Jeannette Eggers, Katja Tröltzsch, Alessandra Falcucci, Luigi Maiorano, Peter H. Verburg, Erik Framstad, Gerald Louette, Dirk Maes, Szabolcs Nagy, Wim Ozinga and Ben Delbaere. GCB Bioenergy 1, 2009, pp. 18-34, doi 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2009.01002.x

And the reaction is predictable.

Reaction to CARB approval of the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard

The Environment Agency of the UK has taken a stand on the sustainability of biofuels:

Biomass energy 'could be harmful'

Particularly interesting and encouraging is a quote from Tony Grayling, head of climate change and sustainable development at the Environment Agency:

"Biomass is a limited resource, and we must make sure it is not wasted on inefficient generators that do not take advantage of the emissions savings to be made from combined heat and power," he said.

"By 2030, biomass fuels will need to be produced using good practice simply to keep up with the average carbon intensity of the electricity grid."

He added: "The government should ensure that good practice is rewarded and that biomass production and use that does more harm than good to the environment does not benefit from public support."

--Mike

The very important but widely ignored consequences of agrofuels-enhanced nitrous oxides emissions is finally getting some press outside of scientific journals. Indeed, we now have this from the Economist:

Farming biofuels produces nitrous oxide. This is bad for climate change

The Scientific Committee has released its report on the environmental consequences of biofuels:

Biofuels: Environmental Consequences and Interactions with Changing Land Use
Proceedings of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) International Biofuels Project Rapid Assessment, 22-25 September 2008, Gummersbach, Germany. R.W. Howarth and S. Bringezu, editors. 2009

This is a timely, careful, and thoroughly scholarly work on the actual and potential consequences of agrofuel expansion. It deserves to serve as a standard reference, and must not be ignored by policy makers considering incentives for the ethanol industry.

The Scientific Committee has released its report on the environmental consequences of biofuels:

Biofuels: Environmental Consequences and Interactions with Changing Land Use
Proceedings of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) International Biofuels Project Rapid Assessment, 22-25 September 2008, Gummersbach, Germany. R.W. Howarth and S. Bringezu, editors. 2009

This is a timely, careful, and thoroughly scholarly work on the actual and potential consequences of agrofuel expansion. It deserves to serve as a standard reference, and must not be ignored by policy makers considering incentives for the ethanol industry.

Despite all of the interest in cellulosic biofuels, biomethane seems to be sorely neglected. A new study from Ireland stresses the benefits of using biomethane from established stands of grass:

Murphy, J. D. and N. M. Power (2009). "An argument for using biomethane generated from grass as a biofuel in Ireland." Biomass & Bioenergy 33(3): 504-512.

The Biofuels Directive proposes 5.75% of transport fuel (by energy) to be replaced by biofuel in the year 2010. This equates to 11.3 PJ in Ireland, which equates to 538 million litres of ethanol or 323 million litres of biodiesel. However, if using biodiesel produced through bioesterification of rapeseed oil, then 6.3% of Irish agricultural land is required to produce 5.75% of transport fuel. Furthermore this equates to 70% of arable land. Using ethanol produced from wheat, 3.9% of Irish agricultural land is required to produce 5.75% of transport fuel. Ethanol produces less energy from a crop, than the energy in the biogas generated when the crop is digested. The ethanol production process uses up to 60% of the produced energy in the final ethanol product. It is shown for compressed biomethane generated from silage that the total parasitic demand of the process is of the order of 25%. Grass/silage is a crop that Irish farmers are familiar with, over 90% of Irish agricultural land is under grass. Grass does not require rotation, it does not require annual ploughing (releasing NO.), and it sequesters carbon into the soil. Digesting silage, scrubbing the biogas to biomethane, and compressing and utilizing it as a transport fuel, is suggested to be the optimum biofuel for Ireland. The 2010 biofuels target can be met with 1.6% of agricultural land; this is four times less land than required using rapeseed. A conservative economic analysis would suggest a lower cost than ethanol produced from wheat. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

With very few changes in words, the following passage can hold for much of North America. Just replace "Irish" with "American", and change the numbers accordingly.

" Grass/silage is a crop that Irish farmers are familiar with, over 90% of Irish agricultural land is under grass. Grass does not require rotation, it does not require annual ploughing (releasing NO.), and it sequesters carbon into the soil. Digesting silage, scrubbing the biogas to biomethane, and compressing and utilizing it as a transport fuel, is suggested to be the optimum biofuel for Ireland."

A new paper in Conservation Biology stresses the climatic and biodiversity consequences of biofuels expansion:

Danielsen, F., H. Beukema, N. D. Burgess, F. Parish, C. A. Bruhl, P. F. Donald, D. Murdiyarso, B. Phalan, L. Reijnders, M. Struebig and E. B. Fitzherbert (2009). "Biofuel Plantations on Forested Lands: Double Jeopardy for Biodiversity and Climate." Conservation Biology 23(2): 348-358.

The growing demand for biofuels is promoting the expansion of a number of agricultural commodities, including oil palm (Elaeis guineensis). Oil-palm plantations cover over 13 million ha, primarily in Southeast Asia, where they have directly or indirectly replaced tropical rainforest. We explored the impact of the spread of oil-palm plantations on greenhouse gas emission and biodiversity. We assessed changes in carbon stocks with changing land use and compared this with the amount of fossil-fuel carbon emission avoided through its replacement by biofuel carbon. We estimated it would take between 75 and 93 years for the carbon emissions saved through use of biofuel to compensate for the carbon lost through forest conversion, depending on how the forest was cleared. If the original habitat was peatland, carbon balance would take more than 600 years. Conversely, planting oil palms on degraded grassland would lead to a net removal of carbon within 10 years. These estimates have associated uncertainty, but their magnitude and relative proportions seem credible. We carried out a meta-analysis of published faunal studies that compared forest with oil palm. We found that plantations supported species-poor communities containing few forest species. Because no published data on flora were available, we present results from our sampling of plants in oil palm and forest plots in Indonesia. Although the species richness of pteridophytes was higher in plantations, they held few forest species. Trees, lianas, epiphytic orchids, and indigenous palms were wholly absent from oil-palm plantations. The majority of individual plants and animals in oil-palm plantations belonged to a small number of generalist species of low conservation concern. As countries strive to meet obligations to reduce carbon emissions under one international agreement (Kyoto Protocol), they may not only fail to meet their obligations under another (Convention on Biological Diversity) but may actually hasten global climate change. Reducing deforestation is likely to represent a more effective climate-change mitigation strategy than converting forest for biofuel production, and it may help nations meet their international commitments to reduce biodiversity loss.

A number of news outlets are reporting Shell Oil's decision to stop investing in wind and solar power, putting all of its development resources into agrofuels:

Shell To Stop Investments in Wind, Solar, hydrogen

This should come as no surprise, given that transportation fuels are the tails wagging the dog of the energy economy. However, it does come as a great disappointment and a sign that Shell is not considering the big picture of global climate change and biodiversity.

UNESCO reports on some of the serious strains that biofuel demand are creating for the global water supply.

This summary is available via farming UK:

Global water shortage could involve us all.

Energy Justice has a harsh but well-researched critique on the environmental impacts of cellulosic ethanol:

Fact Sheet: Cellulosic Ethanol

Biofuels Digest is reporting on an letter that looks like a grass-roots effort by scientists to urge California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to ignore 'bias' in renewable fuel standards. The basic (but flawed, according to many) argument is that indirect effects of agricultural expansion should not be considered when implementing standards.

110 scientists call on Gov. Schwarzenegger to eliminate bias in Low Carbon Fuel Standard

The letter is here

It is interesting to look at the names. The majority are industry or federal scientists with vested interest in accelerating agrofuels investments and development. Of the academics, the vast majority are molecular geneticists, agronomists, agricultural engineers, and allied professions. These are people who are likely to get research funding and other support from commodity groups or the agrofuel industry.

There are NO names that are clearly professionals in the field of climate science, ecology, land use, and socioeconomics. In other words, there is no clear representation of the disciplines that are the most qualified to make an informed scientific judgment on this critically important issue.

The future of the climate is at stake, and it is crucial that policy makers listen to the scientists with relevant expertise.

--Mike Palmer

Yet another official doesn't quite seem to get the 'indirect effects' argument.

Iowa Ag Secretary worried about unfriendly ethanol rule from EPA

Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey makes a very familiar case: because there are uncertainties in the numbers, we shouldn't let unintended consequences of agrofuels expansion worry us. Isn't this what the petroleum industry has been arguing for a long time?

--Mike Palmer

Here is a sobering report on the potential adverse effects of biofuels on the biosphere:

Unintended Environmental Consequences of a Global Biofuels Program

Jerry M. Melillo, Angelo C. Gurgel, David W. Kicklighter, John M. Reilly, Timothy W. Cronin, Benjamin S. Felzer, Sergey Paltsev, C. Adam Schlosser, Andrei P. Sokolov, and X. Wang

These findings should come as no surprise to ecologists, but certainly run against the modern push for agrofuels:

Cropland diversity reduces nitrogen pollution

This is another clear reason to seriously consider wildfuels.

A long article by Donald Stotts in Oklahoma State University's research magazine, Vanguard, showcases OSU's switchgrass agrofuel research. The article is reprinted here:

EPSCoR funding playing vital role in OSU biofuels research

For the first time since the OSU Biofuels Center was established, there is no attempt to stress the environmental 'benefits' of agrofuels. The word 'sustainable' is used frequently, but the clear implication is that the word implies 'economically viable' instead of ecologically viable. Except for this unfortunate but increasing misuse of terminology, it is refreshing to see an article on agrofuels that does not claim an unproven environmental benefit to cellulosic technologies.
--Mike Palmer

AFP and other news distributors are reporting on a recent study by Holly Gibbs of Stanford:

Biofuels may speed up, not slow global warming: study

The main concern is the clearing of tropical forests for agrofuels.

In one of his first moves, US Secretary of Energy Steven Chu has announced new funding for biofuels research:

USDA, DOE Announce Up to $25 Million in Funding for Biomass Research and Development Initiative

For the most part, this is a continuation of business as usual. There is more megafunding for crop development and conversion technologies.

To quote from the announcement

This funding opportunity announcement (FOA) covers three technical areas: biomass feedstocks development; cellulosic biofuels and biobased products; and biofuels development analysis, including strategic guidance, analyses of the energy and environmental impact of biofuels production, and an assessment of the potential for biomass feedstock production on federal lands.

There is a promising hint that ecological effects will be considered (though low on the list). However, I think the general public is not aware that our public lands are being considered for biofuels feedstocks.

There is an interesting irony here: an administration that criticizes oil leases on public land is seriously considering the possibility of plowing up the same public lands for agriculture.

Daniel Starling of the Kansas City Tribune has a well-articulated commentary on the environmental consequences of President Obama's positions on agrofuels:

Our Clean Energy Future Should Minimize Ethanol

***spoiler alert****
The concluding sentence is:

As the debate over energy independence and alternative fuels rages, President Obama should take a second look at the alleged benefits of expanded ethanol use and give more resources to real alternative energy solutions that are both environmentally sound and fiscally sustainable.

Bernard Keane of crikey.com reports on the politics of greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels in NSW, Australia:

Ethanol: Not really all that green

To the US reader, the kinds of politics described here will be quite familiar: a brew of conflict involving pledges of politicians, environmental interests, big agriculture, industry, and mandates. However, what is not commonplace in the US is that the environmental costs of biofuels are taking central stage as part of the public discourse.

--Mike Palmer

Escience News reports on a new study that critically evaluates yield estimates of agrofuel crops:

Nations that sow food crops for biofuels may reap less than previously thought

The authors of the study, Matt Johnston and Tracey Holloway of the University of Wisconsin, estimate that yields have been overestimated by twofold or even more. The consequences of the error are tremendous, as it relates directly to the amount of land that "needs" to be cleared for agrofuels.
--Mike Palmer

I found a copy of the (allegedly deceptive) RFA advertisement as described in the preceding post:

OPEC RAKES IN BILLIONS, BUT BLAMES BIOFUELS… CONFUSED?

John Kemp of Reuters has an insightful commentary on the future of biofuels in the new administration:

Obama's biofuel challenge: John Kemp

Unfortunately, he perpetuates a misunderstanding:

There is only one problem: the United States is not producing any second-generation non-corn ethanol in significant quantities at the moment. So a whole new industry will have to be brought into existence within less than four years and become one of the largest industries in the United States within the next 10 years.

There is a widespread feeling amongst the press and policy makers (and increasingly, the public) that once we 'solve' the technological cellulosic hurdle, we will have the perfect cure for our transportation fuel woes. Unfortunately, this view is profoundly naive: there will still be unintended (but not unanticipated!) negative environmental consequences of converting landscapes worldwide to production of agrofuels.
Wildfuels are an attractive alternative for solving environmental problems, but they run so counter to the agricultural mindset that a serious discussion is unlikely to reach the table.
--Mike Palmer

We constantly must remind ourselves that the environmental consequences of biofuels are not merely of academic concern. A recent article from the BBC describes the effects of oilpalms in rural Colombia:

Afro-Colombians fight biodiesel producers

The report includes an interview with Jose Caceido, a displaced steward of the land:

The changes make it harder for the Afro-Colombians to ever recover their former way of life, observes Mr Caceido. "Once palm oil is planted we cannot hunt anymore because the animals have fled," he says. "There is no more birdsong because the forests have been cut down. The soil hardens for lack of shade. Rivers dry up. Nothing else grows except palm."

Although the details will be different, biofuels plantations of all sorts (including switchgrass, a supposedly benign 'cellulosic' crop) will have environmental impacts that will be felt by rural people almost everywhere.

Dan Simberloff has a perceptive piece in Weed Science on the concerns of invasion biologists:

Simberloff, D. (2008). "Invasion Biologists and the Biofuels Boom: Cassandras or Colleagues?" Weed Science 56(6): 867-872.

Modern invasion biology, is a new science, with the holy grail OF being able to predict the trajectory of particular invasions. Although this goal has yet to be achieved, there has been much progress through experimental research and meticulous Study of the scope and mechanisms of existing invasions. Several well-established patterns are relevant to potential biofuel feedstocks: (1) ca. half of all damaging plant invaders were deliberated introduced, not accidental hitchhikers or escapees; (2) some native plants have become invasive; coevolution with native community members was nor proof against unexpected damage; (3) many introduced plants were innocuous for decades or even centuries in their new locations before suddenly exploding across the landscape; lack Of Current observed impact does not guarantee safety; and (4) control or even eradication of widespread invaders is sometimes possible, but it is fit from certain and it is often very expensive. We cannot Count On effectively, managing an introduction gone awry. Because much invasion biology is targeted at developing 0 methods of preventing anthropogenic movement or establishment of species, invasion biologists have occasionally been assailed as obstructionists by various interests who fear their livelihoods will be impeded: the seed and horticulture trades, foresters, the pet industry, fish and game biologists, etc. A Fringe group of philosophers, sociologists, Landscape architects, and others have even taken to calling invasion biology a thinly veiled form of xenophobia. Some biofuels advocates have joined this litany, accusing invasion biologists of playing oil the emotions of all uneducated public by, raising fears of a new kudzu. Invasion biologists need not be cast in this role. In collaboration with agronomists, geneticists, physiologists, and other scientists, they have much to offer in understanding the risks posed by particular feedstocks and developing approaches that would minimize these risks and mitigate unforeseen consequences.

I agree with this view, but I strongly suspect that invasion biologists will not be invited to the table.

I also worry a bit that too much focus is being placed on the invasive potential of biofuels crops. This is indeed a serious concern. But from my perspective, it is orders of magnitude less of a concern than the conversion of wildlands (i.e. the 'marginal agricultural lands') to biofuels crops, and the ensuing emission of greenhouse gasses and loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

---Mike Palmer

A new study by Mark Jacobson of Stanford ranks wind, solar and hydro far above

A report from Science Daily:

Wind, Water And Sun Beat Biofuels, Nuclear And Coal For Clean Energy

Some quotes from the report:

"The energy alternatives that are good are not the ones that people have been talking about the most. And some options that have been proposed are just downright awful," Jacobson said. "Ethanol-based biofuels will actually cause more harm to human health, wildlife, water supply and land use than current fossil fuels." He added that ethanol may also emit more global-warming pollutants than fossil fuels, according to the latest scientific studies.

The sad fact is that the land conversion is already underway, and there is so much momentum behind biofuels already, that the environmental degradation is inevitable even if we eventually change our collective minds over the ethanol-based energy sector.

---Mike Palmer

The finding that plant diversity supporting soil carbon storage is not unique to Minnesota, and benefits of Low Input High Diversity (LIHD) systems may prove to be near universal in grasslands:

Steinbeiss, S., H. Bessler, C. Engels, V. M. Temperton, N. Buchmann, C. Roscher, Y. Kreutziger, J. Baade, M. Habekost and G. Gleixner (2008). "Plant diversity positively affects short-term soil carbon storage in experimental grasslands." Global Change Biology 14(12): 2937-2949.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration and related climate change have stimulated much interest in the potential of soils to sequester carbon. In 'The Jena Experiment', a managed grassland experiment on a former agricultural field, we investigated the link between plant diversity and soil carbon storage. The biodiversity gradient ranged from one to 60 species belonging to four functional groups. Stratified soil samples were taken to 30 cm depth from 86 plots in 2002, 2004 and 2006, and organic carbon contents were determined. Soil organic carbon stocks in 0-30 cm decreased from 7.3 kg C m(-2) in 2002 to 6.9 kg C m(-2) in 2004, but had recovered to 7.8 kg C m(-2) by 2006. During the first 2 years, carbon storage was limited to the top 5 cm of soil while below 10 cm depth, carbon was lost probably as short-term effect of the land use change. After 4 years, carbon stocks significantly increased within the top 20 cm. More importantly, carbon storage significantly increased with sown species richness (log-transformed) in all depth segments and even carbon losses were significantly smaller with higher species richness. Although increasing species diversity increased root biomass production, statistical analyses revealed that species diversity per se was more important than biomass production for changes in soil carbon. Below 20 cm depth, the presence of one functional group, tall herbs, significantly reduced carbon losses in the beginning of the experiment. Our analysis indicates that plant species richness and certain plant functional traits accelerate the build-up of new carbon pools within 4 years. Additionally, higher plant diversity mitigated soil carbon losses in deeper horizons. This suggests that higher biodiversity might lead to higher soil carbon sequestration in the long-term and therefore the conservation of biodiversity might play a role in greenhouse gas mitigation.

These findings are important enough to warrant more broad-scale funding of LIHD research and demonstration projects. Instead of having biofuels crops replace natural grasslands, we should at least consider keeping diverse grasslands intact for the purpose of biofuels production AND conservation AND carbon sequestration.

---Mike Palmer

A news item in Reuters alerts to the climatic (and conservation) dangers of clearing forests for biofuels plantations:

Clearing forests for biofuel hurts climate - study

I hope to read the study in detail when it comes out in Conservation Biology. However, I do have a concern with all of the focus on clearing of forests. In North America (and perhaps in other places) grasslands are at great risk. I have written elsewhere about the sodbusting that is already occurring due to biofuels, as well as the accelerating loss of CRP lands. Sodbusting is the grassland equivalent of clearcutting old-growth forests. Its effects on the climate are potentially severe: turning of the soil leads to enhanced nitrous oxide emissions, enhanced soil respiration, and under certain circumstances methanogenesis. All of these mean more greenhouse gas emissions. We are just beginning to understand the biodiversity of the grassland rhizosphere, and it seems that it does not recover after plowing. Indeed, the damage is likely to be permanent.

Grasslands are also being ignored in the food vs. fuel debate. The ethanol industry spokespeople (and researchers on cellulosic feedstocks) are continually saying there is no conflict between food and fuel, because we can always plant cellulosic fuels on 'marginal agricultural land' or 'waste land'. Do not be misled by these terms. An agronomist may view certain lands as marginal or waste, but these may be the very same lands that have high value for conservation and biodiversity. Many will have substantial soil carbon stores that will be lost (i.e. by conversion to greenhouse gasses) upon cultivation.

We definitely need to study the effects of biofuels development on the world's forests, as well as the conflict between food and fuel. I look forward to continuing literature on these subjects. But let us not forget the grasslands

The European Union seems genuinely dedicated to minimizing the environmental impacts of biofuels:

EU plans to limit biofuel impact on forests

The Canadians seem to recognize the environmental downside of biofuels, although until recently some of that concern seems to have been kept under wraps:

Biofuels could increase environmental problems, gas prices: Environment Canada told

A coalition of six environmental groups has drafted a letter to the EPA, requesting that greenhouse gas emissions and land use be considered when implementing biofuels mandates:

Letter to Stephen Johnson

This letter is in part a response to pressure from the biofuels industry to ignore the Greenhouse implications of land clearing for biofuels.

Kathryn Fuller Science for Nature Fund
2008 Science for Nature Symposium

BIOFUELS: WHICH ARE MORE SUSTAINABLE?

Please join World Wildlife Fund for the 2008 Kathryn Fuller Science for Nature Symposium on November 19-20, 2008 in Washington, DC. This year's symposium will present the "state of the science" with regard to biofuels and their impacts on biodiversity, the environment, greenhouse gas emissions, and food supply and will build consensus among scientists, conservation practitioners, investors, and policy makers regarding key impacts and acceptable performance.

ATTEND IN PERSON OR VIA LIVE WEBCAST!
Date: November 19-20, 2008 Time: 8:00am-5:00pm
Location: World Wildlife Fund Headquarters 1250 24th Street NW Washington, DC 20037
The symposium will be held both at WWF Headquarters in Washington, DC, and via Webcast for those who would like to attend remotely.

And in a couple of days:

Welcome to GROW 2008!
The third annual Oklahoma Biofuels Conference

November 12-13, 2008
The Skirvin Hilton Hotel Conference Center, Oklahoma City

This two-day event takes an in-depth look at the latest regulatory, agricultural and technical developments impacting the biofuels industry in Oklahoma. Learn the latest news and developments in the biofuel industry, including:

Updates on the Oklahoma Bioenergy Center’s Research Fields
New and proposed initiatives and funding for bioenergy research including the 2008 Farm Bill
2nd generation feedstocks for Oklahoma
Discussion on food v. fuel debate
Biorefinery construction – new players, plans and progress
Biofuel impacts for end users
Carbon control policies that may offer income potential for producers
Energy sustainability
Advances in feedstock conversion technology

I was amazed to see energy sustainability listed as a topic. This, I thought, represented the first time in which the Oklahoma biofuels community admitted that there might be environmental consequences to biofuels production, and that the question of net energy might be worthy of discussion.

That turned out to be too much to expect. After looking at the agenda, we can see the 'energy sustainability' session will consist of a panel of two agricultural economists.

Plenary Session: Sustainability Issues
Panelists will discuss a variety of sustainability issues relating to biofuel economics, including the management of feedstock pricing, feedstock supply and its impact on production, managing the agricultural supply chain for biofuels production, and the funding of biofuels in agribusiness.

Is this really what biofuels researchers and the biofuels industry consider to be what is meant by 'sustainability'?

---Mike

Richard Harris filed a story this morning on NPR's morning edition:

Plants: The Fuel Of The Future?
by Richard Harris

At first, this paper seemed to be a straight industry-driven piece - like many we have seen before. The report was extolling the virtues of plants, and there was a glowing evaluation of Miscanthus, the miracle grass. but then there was the voice of Chris Somerville, who is leading much of the cellulosic ethanol research:

"We're only interested in it, frankly, if it can be environmentally positive and socially positive," Somerville says. "So as we proceed with the technical innovation, we want to make sure we understand these other dimensions, and so that we can make appropriate choices, including one possible choice is that we shouldn't do this."

I was dumbfounded, given by how much plant research is supported by the biofuels industry. This quote was followed by another enlightened one from British Petroleum Vice President Paul Willems:

"If biofuels are going to become a big part of our company in the long run, then our view is the only way that can be the case is if biofuels are done in a sustainable way that is clearly good for the environment and land use," Willems says. "We don't want to be building a big part of our company on a shaky foundation."

Unfortunately, the game is in play for the industry to receive massive incentives for biofuels, regardless of the environmental consequences. I hope calm and clear voices such as those of Somerville and Willems will prevail.
--Mike

According to the Des Moines Register, the EPA is about to issue rules related to the environmental impact of the renewable fuels mandates. Subtle differences in how the rules are formulated can have huge effects on whether or not corn ethanol, or even cellulosic switchgrass, will be allowable.

Brasher: Biofuel rules could chill future projects

We need much more research like this:

Pestering milfoil to be studied as a potential biofuel

As mentioned before, 'vegetation management' (i.e. removing unwanted biomass) is a major activity worldwide. It does not make any sense to ignore this as a potential source of biofuels, especially at a time when we are plowing up native vegetation for biofuels monoculture crops.

Britain is delaying implementation of transportation biofuels targets due to concern over sustainability. It is also devoting resources for research into sustainability of biofuels.

Adonis sets out more cautious approach to Biofuels

Biofuels Digest has been one of the most reliable sources of news about biofuels from the industry's perspective. However, recently it has started to feature anti-environmentalist news unrelated to biofuels. For example, yesterdays' report featured an article blasting the World Wildlife Fund for one of its fundraising expeditions:

Today in Biofuels Opinion: “The (World Wildlife Fund) trip will produce 1231 tons of CO2 in 25 days”

I do not know anything about this disturbing accusation, and would not be surprised if it is true, false, or distorted. However, there is no mention of biofuels in the entire report. So why is Biofuels Digest including this story in its newsletter? The only conclusion I can reach is that it views WWF as a threat to biofuels, and therefore there is a need to discredit the WWF. This news story does great harm to the credibility of Biofuels Digest as a source of relevant news about biofuels.

Finally, there seems to be some attention being paid by DOE to the environmental consequences of biofuels. The new Biofuels Action Plan includes plans for research on sustainability and environmental effects (other priority areas include Feedstock Logistics, Conversion Science and Technology, Distribution Infrastructure, and Blending).

• Sustainability: A working group led by USDA, DOE, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is defining science-based national criteria, which will be established by November 2008, and indicators to assess the sustainability of biofuels production coordinated with ongoing international activities.
• Environment, Health and Safety: An EPA-led working group is inventorying federal activities and areas of jurisdiction with respect to public health, safety, and environmental protection.

Of course, development of indicators and inventorying harm caused by biofuels does not necessarily mean that the runaway train of biofuels will be easily switched to a sustainable track. But at least we will be more likely to know the harm we are doing as we are doing it.

The fact sheet can be found here:

Fact Sheet: National Biofuels Action Plan

I have previously posted about the ESA workshop on biofuels. It has now yielded its first fruit, in the form of a policy paper in Science.

Some press releases:

Experts agree: Environmental standards needed for biofuels

Oklahoma researchers support biodiversity in biofuels production

Mandate For Biofuels Production Requires Science-Based Policy

The article is here, though you might need a subscription to read it:

Sustainable Biofuels Redux

It is truly amazing that 23 scientists can agree on anything. This document (expertly crafted by lead author Phil Robertson) emphasizes that we are ignoring some of the most important issues with respect to the sustainability of biofuels.

---Mike

An amusing news item about 'big algae':

National Algae Association, Algal Biomass Organization stage conference same days, different towns; confusion reigneth

These are the guys who say they have a solution to climate change.

A new report from energy daily implies that the renewable energy mandates will cause widespread destruction of forests.

A news report is here.

I admit to not having read the report from RISI, a forest industry group - the price tag is $9000! Information about the report is here:

Emerging Biomass Study

Solazyme has announced that it has produced algal biofuels that pass the grade suitable for jet fuels:

Solazyme Produces World’s First Algal-Based Jet Fuel

But can we really call these algal biofuels? The algae apparently are raised heterotrophically on sugar supplied by other plants. They are not primary producers. It is the original plants that are the real feedstocks, the algae are merely converting the energy. We don't call bacteria the feedstock for cellulosic conversion - so what makes these algae any different? For those thinking that algae are the ultimate environmentally sound biofuel feedstock, think again. The algae may just be the middlemen.

From Business Week:

Africa Becoming a Biofuel Battleground
Western companies are pushing to acquire vast stretches of African land to meet the world's biofuel needs

The Inter-American Development Bank has developed a scorecard for assessing the sustainability of biofuels:

IDB Biofuels Sustainability Scorecard

Overall, this is a step in the right direction. The developers admit it is an experimental project. The biodiversity and the greenhouse gas aspects to be somewhat underemphasized and/or vague. There is no provision for feedstocks that contribute to biodiversity (such as LIHD grasslands).

Perhaps because they are currently minimal players on the biofuels market, or perhaps because few people are familiar with them, algal biofuels have largely avoided intense scrutiny by critics. Now they are in the crosshairs.

From Low Tech Magazine:

Leave the algae alone
While the first generation of biofuels is wreaking havoc on the environment and the food markets, the second generation is set to make things even worse.

Whether or not you agree with the premise of this piece, it is clear that there are major issues of sustainability with respect to algal biofuels.

While the initial rhetoric of Range Fuels Inc. has been very promising, they have now firmly moved into the High-Input, Low-Diversity biofuels camp by partnering with Ceres, Incorporated.

Range Fuels Partners with Ceres

This is bad news for intact tallgrass prairie, naturally revegetated wild grasslands, and CRP lands, which are widely considered 'marginal agricultural land' suitable for planting 'advanced cellulosic feedstocks'. The loss of biodiversity and (arguably more important for climate change) outgassing of nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide from the soil are unlikely to be considered, despite argument that "the high-yield crops are expected to minimize the environmental footprint while supplying greater volume of biomass to create ethanol"

As mentioned before in this blog, bioprospecting can be a winning game in the search for environmentally-friendly biofuels.

I am an amateur woodworker, and I have been impressed by how hard hardwood is.
We also heat our house with wood, and I have been even more impressed by how longhorn beetle (Cerambycidae) larvae are able able to chew their way through oak and hickory.

Now a new study describes how this happens, as reported in escience news:

Novel fungus helps beetles to digest hard wood

The implications for biofuels are clear: lignin is a tough molecule to break down. Why bother to reinvent a way to do so, when other organisms have been doing this for millions of years?